??????
You are not logged in.
In a game like Cordial Minuet where random play can be effective, though not necessarily more effective than deliberate play, it may actually cause legal issues.
cullman's chess analogy is pretty useful here. Likewise, a totally random CM column picker is very easy to beat on average. A random RPS player cannot be beat on average.
Also, this testimony is pretty convincing:
To me the test is this, when I was first starting out I won ZERO games against a good player, that to me says that it is a game of skill. In fact, in my first 20 games I don't think I even won a round of the game - surely if luck was a big factor I would have won one even by accident. As a beginning poker player I won many sit and go tournaments just purely based on the strength of my cards.
Canto Delirium: a Twitter bot for CM. Also check out my strategy guide!
Offline
cullman's chess analogy is pretty useful here. Likewise, a totally random CM column picker is very easy to beat on average. A random RPS player cannot be beat on average.
I know that random play in Cordial Minuet can be beaten fairly easily. But, I also played a lot of games early on where I picked randomly to test this out. And while I did lose money on those games, wouldn't those games still be considered illegal by the letter of the law? And if so, might Jason be considered culpable for enabling me to play them? I'm not trying to be a wet blanked here, but I just want everyone to understand that if Cordial Minuet ends up in a real legal fight, even the smallest technicalities might end up being used against it.
Offline
wouldn't those games still be considered illegal by the letter of the law?
I think the crux of it here is that the game isn't "subject to chance" just because someone could theoretically base their actions on chance. Subject to chance means elements of the game that aren't controlled by the players have nondeterministic outcomes.
The term ‘game of chance’ has an accepted meaning established by numerous adjudications. Although different language is used in some of the cases in defining the term, the definitions are substantially the same. It is the character of the game rather than a particular player's skill or lack of it that determines whether the game is one of chance or skill.
Canto Delirium: a Twitter bot for CM. Also check out my strategy guide!
Offline
Hmm... so would you say then that that paragraph could be interpreted to mean the my example Rock Paper Scissors website would not be considered a game of chance?
Offline
Hmm... so would you say then that that paragraph could be interpreted to mean the my example Rock Paper Scissors website would not be considered a game of chance?
No because your example is not an implementation of a game of RPS in the classic two human player sense. Yours is a game like RPS where the computer side always plays randomly, making it not just RPS but RPS with a built in random playing strategy.
Offline
...right, so when I was playing Cordial Minuet by picking randomly using a computer program I wrote, then that wasn't a game of chance?
Offline
Ugh, this is exhausting....No because you have written a client, you aren't the author of the game and it's rules. Again, if what you said was true, I could make for money fantasy football illegal by making a random bot that plays it. Jere's definition makes it very clear that it's the game not the player that determines chance vs skill. You have made a chance player not a chance game. I don't know how else to explain it, but I am sure this is not an issue.
Offline
Again, if what you said was true, I could make for money fantasy football illegal by making a random bot that plays it.
Well, you said that creating a website that acts as a bot for playing Rock Paper Scissors randomly for money would be a game of chance, so yes? I don't know, I'm not intentionally trying to be difficult, but I really don't understand how the law works in this situation. Why is it that playing a game where you know the outcome is dictated by chance would be made illegal or not illegal based on the circumstances under which it is played? The law says that a game is a game of chance if "the character of the game rather than a particular player's skill or lack of it" determines the outcome of the game. So if the outcome of Rock Paper Scissors is really determined by the player and not the game, why is it that when you make the player a computer that picks randomly and not a human, all of a sudden the game is a game of chance, even if none of the game's rules were changed in any way? Aren't you just making an arbitrary distinction if you can make the game illegal or not depending on who or what is playing it? This just doesn't make any sense to me.
Offline
cullman wrote:Again, if what you said was true, I could make for money fantasy football illegal by making a random bot that plays it.
Well, you said that creating a website that acts as a bot for playing Rock Paper Scissors randomly for money would be a game of chance, so yes? I don't know, I'm not intentionally trying to be difficult, but I really don't understand how the law works in this situation. Why is it that playing a game where you know the outcome is dictated by chance would be made illegal or not illegal based on the circumstances under which it is played? The law says that a game is a game of chance if "the character of the game rather than a particular player's skill or lack of it" determines the outcome of the game. So if the outcome of Rock Paper Scissors is really determined by the player and not the game, why is it that when you make the player a computer that picks randomly and not a human, all of a sudden the game is a game of chance, even if none of the game's rules were changed in any way? Aren't you just making an arbitrary distinction if you can make the game illegal or not depending on who or what is playing it? This just doesn't make any sense to me.
Because in your website example the chance based bot is built into the game, by definition it's a game of chance. If you created a RPS website for 2 humans to play, and even if someone wrote a random bot to play one side of that, that would be a game of skill. Now if the website only allowed one human and one external random bot to play, it would be a game of chance. Because the game/website is not putting the chance in, some external player/bot is. It comes purely down to is the element chance happening within the confines of the game or the player.
Offline
Okay, then what if the website's owner knew that someone was running a bot on the website that picked randomly? They could determine this based on statistical information regarding how the bot was picking. Would they then be responsible for shutting it down, or would laws regarding being a facilitator for gambling not apply? I'm not sure if there is a gambling version of the DMCA...
Offline
Honestly AnoHito, I get what you're saying and I don't have a very good response. That setup certainly seems like something that would be ruled illegal, but perhaps it's because you've explicitly stated that you've tied it to a chance event.
Another approach to this that I just encountered: can you lose at the game?
In the absence for now of any scientific proof, Prof. Nesson urged the group to come up with more legalistic arguments. Ms. Duke has won more than $3 million in tournament prize money. One sure sign that poker is a skill, she says, is that unlike roulette or the lottery or betting on football, "you can purposely lose at poker if you choose." To lose requires skill, she says -- or at least an ability to affect the outcome.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB117812153189389684 (had to google this to get past the paywall)
Between human players, you could certainly lose intentionally given enough RPS games. Just play rock every time. We all agree you can lose CM on purpose too, right? That's not really enough to meet a legal requirement, but it's an interesting perspective.
Canto Delirium: a Twitter bot for CM. Also check out my strategy guide!
Offline
Okay, then what if the website's owner knew that someone was running a bot on the website that picked randomly? They could determine this based on statistical information regarding how the bot was picking. Would they then be responsible for shutting it down, or would laws regarding being a facilitator for gambling not apply? I'm not sure if there is a gambling version of the DMCA...
No they wouldn't because it's a chance player not a chance game. Please respond to this point, if what you said was true, anyone could make any http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_skill-based_game like fantasy football illegal by writing a bot for it that plays randomly.
Offline
I honestly have no idea. I don't think there is any legal precedent that covers whether wagering money on a skill based game and playing randomly would be a game of chance. I would be interested to know if someone could cite one though.
Offline
I honestly have no idea. I don't think there is any legal precedent that covers whether wagering money on a skill based game and playing randomly would be a game of chance. I would be interested to know if someone could cite one though.
There doesn't need to be. As a game creator/designer you can only be held responsible for the rules and structure of the game, not for how people (or bots) play it.
Offline
I wonder... If someone did successfully argue that it was illegal to play Cordial Minuet (or any skill based game) in a way that was determined by chance, and successfully proved that Jason knew this was going on and did nothing to stop it... But, it would be a pretty long shot I guess.
My original concern was actually more whether the outcome of picking could be considered an element of chance when neither player had direct control over it. The discussion sort of got off on an unrelated tangent. But that is a really tricky thing to consider, because while the outcome of picking is not random, Cordial Minuet still forces you to bet on the outcome of the picking without giving you complete information on the result. I think it is anyone's guess as to whether the legal system would interpret that as an element of chance or not.
Offline
Very interesting discussion here!
Offline
Regarding the hidden information, consider this thought experiment:
Both players pick a word, then simultaneously reveal their choice to the opponent. A deterministic algorithm takes both words as input and outputs either a 0 or a 1, selecting one of the players as the winner. The algorithm is known to both players beforehand.
Let's say the deterministic algorithm is a hash function. Now the outcome of the game is essentially ("for all intents and purposes") random, and there is very little trace of skill left. Even though it's not random, it's actually 100% deterministic. It's just that you don't have a good way to predict the outcome of your choice.
So is hidden information really sufficient to argue that a game does not have an element of chance?
Last edited by vegard (2015-03-05 23:18:10)
Offline
Hmm... this is exactly the kind of thought experiment that I love. See:
http://monolith.sourceforge.net/
Anyway...
If you knew what your opponent was going to pick, you could easily win this word game every time. You'd try various words and hash them with your opponent's known choice until you found a word that hashed with your opponent's word to make 1.
If your opponent could pick any word in the dictionary, could you predict their choice? That's an interesting question, especially since they're playing the same game against you. Over many rounds, you might be able to. You could bait them by picking LOVE repeatedly until they started always counter-hashing LOVE, and then after they got in that pattern, you could counter-hash their counter-hash. Of course, they have 5,000 counter-hashes for LOVE to chose from, each with 5,000 different counter-hashes! This is like RPS with 10,000 moves for each player and pairwise X BEATS Y relationships for every pair of moves.
Scaling the problem down, what if there was a list of 2 known words to pick from? At that point, I think you'd start having a good shot at predicting your opponent's behavior and playing accordingly.
But at what point, when you scale it up, does it cross the point where it becomes essentially random? From a theoretical standpoint, never. From a legal standpoint, I have no idea.
Richard Garfield's recent book has an example game like this to illustrate a point about chance vs. randomness. I've loaned the book out, unfortunately.
Offline
The solution is to simply present each board twice in a row, rotated 90 degrees the second time. Thus, whatever slight advantage you had on the board on turn 1, your opponent will have on turn 2. Turn 3 you will get a completely fresh board.
This will also add another avenue for expert play (players have long been asking for a chance to see the board from their opponent's perspective).
Sorry to go way back in this thread, but I really like this idea. I do think the initial board layout does affect the outcome and can give one player a strategic advantage (both given particular player styles or given optimal play). I also like the idea of being able to compare my play with my opponents on the same board.
As Anohito mentions though you can still get an advantage depending on who sees which board first, because the stack sizes will be different, you could even have situations where the board is advantageous to player one where the effective stack is 50 times the ante but gives an advantage to the other player if the effective stack size is less than 10 antes. Then a player could get an advantage from both sides of the same board. Plus of course there's always a chance that a player loses all their coins the first time a board is seen, so whoever had an disadvantage on that board is uncompensated. So just having each board shown twice won't eliminate randomness.
Two ideas for eliminating it these factors, both are less friendly to new players though:
1. Every two rounds take the smaller stack and divide it in 2 (throw away remainder if small stack is an odd number), this is the maximum bet size for the following 2 rounds, ante, ante is the same for both rounds.
2. Display both boards simultaneously and have players makes their picks and bets for each board at the same time. You could only allow bet sizes up to half the small stack before. This would probably be more of a fun variant than a possible adjustment to the main game though, trying to play two boards at once would be too intimidating for new players and probably quite a few more experienced players too (there's plenty enough to think about on just one board) but I think it would be fun.
Offline
A simple solution:
If a player leaves the game before they commit to any decisions then both players get their coin back.
In theory players should just keep refusing until they get what they're sure is a favourable board in this case. In practice personally I'd be refusing probably at least 50% of boards.
Offline
Hey now, you're quoting the wrong guy there!
Rotating the board and presenting it again would give the advantage to both players with a perfect, 50/50 split. Though it seems like the first/second to play from a given perspective on a given board STILL has a different experience. You know, we already picked on this board once. Won't that change the information we have on the second pick? Also, our stacks will be different, as you point out.
Just issuing a new board each round gives the advantage to both players in a way that approaches a perfect 50/50 split in the limit. For now, it's okay as-is, I think.
Isn't chess a forced win for white?
Don't we flip a coin to decide who plays white? Oh, we flip a coin to decide who gets to pick their color first.
But that doesn't make it a game subject to chance.
Clearly, the advantage for one player on a given board is strictly less than the advantage for white in Chess (where white can force a win, but the advantaged player in CM cannot force a win).
Offline
How about a second-price sealed-bid auction for the right to choose your side of the board. I mean:
1) Have players agree on and pay initial stakes.
2) Show both players the board.
3) Each player chooses a preferred side (rows or columns) and how much they are willing to pay to play on it.
4) The player with the higher bid gets their preferred side and adds the lower bid to the pot.
5) Play proceeds as usual.
You can have a different board every time, generated in any way.
-----------------
Some related ideas: Steps 1 and 2 could be reversed. You could circulate boards for some brief time, collecting data on bids.
By the way, white being able to force a win in chess is news to me. I mean, no one solved the game by backward induction yet, right?
(I haven't tried the game yet because I'm a tad fearful of putting my CC info into a portable app. Sorry if my suggestion doesn't actually make sense for it.)
Offline
Just issuing a new board each round gives the advantage to both players in a way that approaches a perfect 50/50 split in the limit.
Yes but so long as you don't pick out some players for a special advantage some way this will be true of any random element.
Isn't chess a forced win for white?
We're not likely to know any time soon. We don't even know that black doesn't have a forced win, though most players assume that they don't (see this short piece by a friend of mine giving some thoughts on it if you're interested: http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~dld/Publ … Q_p158.jpg, http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~dld/Publ … _p159.jpg). My money is is on chess being a draw though, white scores about 54-56% at the highest level which is much closer than to 50% than 100%, the vast majority of theorists think that and it generally feels much more like mistakes were made when black loses then when there's a draw. It's very rare to see a game where black lost but it seems they couldn't have improved their play but this is fairly common with drawn games. This Wikipedia page has lots of interesting stuff on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move … e_in_chess. The chess example is still good though. White seems to have an inherent advantage but chess would surely be a paradigm example of a pure skill game. In tournaments though there are always some systems in place to mitigate this effect and it generally involves very little randomness.
Last edited by storeroom leaflet (2015-03-06 12:52:05)
Offline
(I haven't tried the game yet because I'm a tad fearful of putting my CC info into a portable app. Sorry if my suggestion doesn't actually make sense for it.)
This thread might help put you at ease:
Offline
Frank, I've thought about more complex mechanisms like that.... to allow players to vet the board somehow before actually playing on it. I decided that this would be overkill, because the advantages to be had are so small for the player with the upper hand on a given board. Especially for new players, you'd be sticking them with a necessary decision at the start of a round that they'd have very little understanding of. I'm not sure advanced players really have a solid understanding of it either at this point.
Yeah, there's no proof that chess is a forced win for white. That's my hunch, though. We have non-constructive proofs for games like Hex through the strategy-stealing argument. Of course, Hex cannot end in a draw. That's sort of a fundamental flaw of Chess, though, eh? But maybe that's part of its beauty...
But anyway, we'd have to chose player 1 in Hex through some mechanism, and that player can force a win. If we flipped a coin to pick who plays first, I don't think that would make the game subject to chance.
Offline
){kind=link}